National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Divya Builders vs Karnataka State Co-Operative & Anr. on 13 August, 2021
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 466 OF 2021 (Against the Order dated 26/08/2019 in Appeal No. 2075/2017 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. M/S. DIVYA BUILDERS ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE & ANR. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Shrividya, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 13 Aug 2021 ORDER Taken up through video conferencing. Heard the learned counsel on admission. Perused the material on record.
1. This revision petition has been instituted under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 (corresponding Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019) in challenge to the Order dated 26.08.2019 of the State Commission in appeal no. 2075 of 2017 arising out of the Order dated 12-05-2017 of the District Commission in complaint no. 1186 of 2012.
2. The dispute relates to a builder-buyer agreement. The petitioner, M/s Divya Builders, was the opposite party before the District Commission. The respondent no. 1, The Karnataka State Co-operative Housing Federation Ltd., and the respondent no. 2, Divya Sapthami Apartment Owners Welfare Association, were the complainants no. 1 and no. 2 before the District Commission.
3. We note that the District Commission has exhaustively dealt with the relevant issues inherent in the matter, and, vide its Order dated 12.05.2017, has allowed the complaint in part, on contest, and made the following order:
The complaint filed by the complainants U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part. OP is directed to make necessary deposit to BWSSB for getting water supply and sanitary connections to the said apartment complex "Divya Sapthami" within six weeks from the date of communication of the order.
OP is directed to comply necessary directions issued by Deputy Electrical Inspector in his report dated 21.07.2010 & 22.06.2011 for smooth operation of the lifts and provide grill around the transformer as directed in the inspection report of the Deputy Electrical Inspector and raise the height of grill by 4 feet around the transformer and shall replace 11 ducts and 13 numbers of drainage chamber caps of good quality and also replace electric wiring in the common area as noted in the said inspection report and also provide proper lighting in the common area including parking area.
OP shall provide concrete flooring to the basement for car parking and shall attend to all other minor repairs as undertaken by him in his letter dated 31.08.2010.
OP shall comply the above directions within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the event of failure of OP in complying the order, he shall pay a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- (Sixteen Lakhs Only) to the complainants to get the said work done from the third parties.
OP shall obtain occupancy certificate from BBMP and provide the same to the members of complainant-2 association within six weeks from the date of communication of the order.
The deficiency committed on the part of OP must have caused inconvenience, hardship and mental agony to the complainants. Therefore OP is directed to pay sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Only) as compensation to complainants together with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only).
4. We also note that the State Commission summoned the record of the lower forum, and, observing that the District Commission's Order does not call for any interference, has dismissed the appeal.
5. The two fora below have returned concurrent findings. The Orders of the State Commission and the District Commission are matter of record. We do not feel it necessary to reproduce the facts and evidence all over again. Suffice is to say that we do not find any palpable misappreciation of the evidence as may cause to require fresh de novo re-appreciation in revision, we do not find any point of law ignored or wrongly addressed, we do not find any jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice.
6. In respect of one argument made by the learned counsel for the revisionist builder, that the complainant no. 1 is not 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act 1986 (corresponding Section 2(7) of the Act 2019), we may first note that this issue has been dealt with by the District Commission in paras 7 and 8 of its Order of 12.05.2017.
In the present facts of the instant case, we do not agree with the contention that the complainant no. 1, a co-operative housing federation, retaining a margin to meet its office expenses and salaries of its staff and honoraria to its governing members etc. is a "commercial purpose" and that as such it attracts exclusion of the complainant no. 1 from the definition of 'consumer' under the Act 1986. Incurring its administrative expenses, which are ultimately for and on behalf of its members, cannot be construed to mean that the co-operative housing federation is undertaking a "commercial purpose" as may exclude it from the meaning of 'consumer'.
7. In respect of another argument made by the learned counsel that the order made by the District Commission was outside the responsibilities of the revisionist builder, we may note that the District Commission has exhaustively dealt with the omissions on the part of the builder in its Order of 12.05.2017.
A treatise would be misplaced here, suffice is to observe that a mere reading of the order made by the District Commission, reproduced in para 3 above, shows that it relates to the completion of unfinished works that were decidedly the builder's duty.
8. Nothing warrants interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission within the ambit and scope of Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019 (corresponding Section 21(b) of the Act 1986).
The revision petition no. 466 of 2021, being bereft of worth, is dismissed.
The Order of the District Commission, as upheld by the State Commission, is sustained.
9. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to their learned counsel within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.
...................... DINESH SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER ......................J KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE MEMBER